When using other people's time and resources I have an unwritten obligation as a researcher.
Their time is valuable and a huge help when collecting the data. (Hay, 2010). Before
interviewing, I applied Norsk Senter for Forskningsdata11 (NSD), for the type of methods and questions used in this case study. I explained to the informants that sensitive and economic information were anonymized, and deleted after analysing the information. Before each interview, both individual and group interviews, a consent form was sent which shortly presented the thesis and how I was going to use the audio-recording during the interview. The County Governor had written a one-page letter about how they collaborated with me, and that they encourage the informants to answer the questions.
For the group-interviews, I used the same forms as the individual informants had received, but added an extra signature line were they confirmed the right to use their names on quotations and valuable information agreed upon.
As explained in my introduction there are always some weaknesses for further study in all fields, from science and research papers. In addition to qualitative methods, quantitative methods probably would have strengthened the thesis with numbers and more information around the economical values in the agricultural area. “Telemarksfeet som beiterydder” is a report published about four different farmers who have a stock of Telemark Cattle. I argue there is a weakness in the qualitative methods derived from using the information in this
10 See Appendix iv & v
11 See Appendix vi & vii
37 report and its qualitative depth interviews on the different farms, because it only represents four farmers who already have the Telemark Cattle, and does not include farmers that chose not to use this breed (Hartwiksen, 2005).
Some questions were vague and leading in my interviews, and when this happen I did not take them in as a fact, but as a leading thread. Because of my few leading questions I lost the answers that could have been neutral empirical findings. Another weakness in qualitative interviews, is when informants give the answer he or she thinks is what the interviewer wants on information and feedback. In participant observation there is a known weakness where the case or informants under observation might be acting differently because they know they are being observed. Observation is highly subjective since I, as a researcher, see the happening as one person and not in a team up for discussion later on after the events.
38
39
4 Politics
Documents and political processes are seen as tools motivated by social values towards an ambition or change. “Valuation is a particular form of practice” (Dussauge et al., 2015, p.
170). Systematic political changes go through certain actors before they reach the agricultural sector in different ways. As seen in Figure 1, actors related to the Telemark Cattle are shown in a process-chain. The actors in circles outside of the chain are connected to different projects at different times. How they get involved does not follow a standard routine or recipe, but somehow affects each other via common interests.
One of the actors in Figure 1 is Telemarksforskning. This agency is in a circle because it is not necessarily directly affected by the Department on Food and Agriculture but is
connected with the Norwegian Research Council. Telemarksforskning mostly conducts research based on a request from actors, usually public ones, like Counties, Municipalities, and regions. Fully 90 percent of research is produced on contract with these public actors, and the remaining 10 percent on assignment from the Research Council and Departments. Some of the research topics are strictly defined and not open for interpretation. Other projects, mostly from the Research Council, are vaguer and give Telemarksforskning the possibility to do more open-minded research. They divide the work according to who in-house is interested in the topic, and has time and knowledge to work on it. Some people in the house enjoy statistics and numbers, while others do more social or qualitative research out in the field. In other words, they do not have strict models for collecting materials and values.
The County Governor and the Telemarksforskning are relevant in order to arrange projects to save the Telemark Cattle. These are two examples of public institutions, one administrative one, and one research and knowledge-based agency. To understand the complexity around policies related to the Telemark Cattle and the Mountain Region, an overview of actors and networks was necessary. This allowed me to see the chain of value throughout my thesis.
40
Figure 3 Actor-Network Model
Figure 3 is an ANT model on the actors in mountain region, which can also be divided in human, non-human, and inanimate sections. The human actors are The Departments, Fjellnettverket, Fjellandbruket, The County Governor, The County, Innovation Norway, Municipalities, and individual entrepreneur and farmers. They all contribute on different levels and together with non-human actors. The non-human actors are Telemark Cattle, Domestic animals, and cultural landscape values. Human and non-human actors are under influence of inanimate tools and technology, such as funds, new agricultural technology, research-papers, and White Papers.
As shown above in Figure 3, there are several elements and actors influencing values at the end of the chain. Rural places in Norway, which is completely different from the rest of the world, are influenced by reforms made by the national and international legislation
(personal communication, the County Governor, 2016). As seen in Figure 3, the mountain region is influenced by relations between different types of actors - human, non-human (animals and natural actors), and inanimate (time, place, money and non-living actors). To map out the different valuable actors concerning the Telemark Cattle in the mountain region, I draw on the theory of valuation. Valuation theory is a relatively new direction in STS where natural, cultural, or/and emotional values are present beyond the economic commercialisation or profit. “Value can be defined as the degree of usefulness or desirability of something, especially in comparison with other things, and is by definition subjective” (Andriessen, 2005. p. 1). Knowledge is described as something you have or had. That makes knowledge a physical thing that exists. If knowledge is a thing it has to be ascribed a value like any other
41 thing. So, if value is subjective then it is also important to be aware of who has determined the value, and on what premises, and in what circumstances is it determined?